ISLAMABAD: Ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday filed a review petition, along with two separate applications, in the Supreme Court against its July 28 verdict in the Panama Papers case.

The petition filed through senior advocate Khawaja Haris Ahmad requested the court to stay further implementation of the verdict until a decision on the review petition is announced. The three pleas have raised a total of 19 reasons as to why the former prime minister could not be disqualified.

“As far as disqualification of petitioner (Nawaz Sharif) by way of declaration in terms of Section 99(f) of ROPA and Article 62 (1)(f), for non-disclosure of his un-withdrawn income from Capital FZE in his nomination papers for 2013 general elections is concerned, it is submitted that this declaration also suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record,” the petition said.

In the 36-page application, Sharif has requested the court to review its July 28 verdict. He submitted that he did not conceal the documents in his nomination papers for the 2013 general elections– the reason for which the court termed him not honest and trustworthy.

“It is also submitted that under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, ‘salary’ is to be declared as income only after it is received,” the petition reads.

The review plea states that under Article 188 of the constitution, Sharif cannot be disqualified without a trial. Being deprived of the right to appeal against the verdict is in violation of the constitution, it said, pleading the court to dismiss petitions filed by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad, Imran Khan and Siraj-ul-Haq.

Documents concerning iqama- the United Arab Emirates residence permit- that led to Sharif’s disqualification, have also been attached with the petition.

The petition states that July 28 decision should have been given by a three-member bench since Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed’s jurisdiction had expired after their dissenting judgment on April 20. “By signing the final order of the court on July 28, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed have actually passed two judgments in the same case, which is unprecedented in the judicial history,” the review petition maintains.

“On the face of the record, there are four final judgments passed in this case; the first of these final judgments being the minority judgment dated 20.04.2017 of the two members of the originally constituted five-member bench; the second being the majority judgment dated 20.04.2017 passed by the three-member bench; the third judgment dated 29.07.2017 again passed by the three-member bench of the court; and the fourth being the final order of the court dated 28.07.2017 passed by the originally constituted five-member bench,” the review plea maintained.

“The commendation and appreciation of the joint investigation team (JIT) and its subordinate staff is a gross transgression of Nawaz Sharif’s fundamental right to fair trial, the review petition reads, and calls for paragraph six of the final judgment to be expunged.

“The members of the JIT considerably overstepped authority and the court’s bench assumed National Accountability Bureau’s function by directing it,” the petition maintains.

The petition states that the non-disclosure of iqama in nomination papers of Nawaz Sharif for 2013 elections, which became the ground for his disqualification, was not included in any of the petitions against Nawaz Sharif, thus, the bench did not have any authority to rule over it. The appeal also contests the definitions of the terms ‘receivable’, ‘asset’ and ‘salary’ used by the bench in July 28 verdict.

Five more petitions are expected to be filed soon by Sharif`s three children Maryam, Hussain and Hassan Nawaz, his son-in-law Capt (r) Safdar and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

On July 28, 2017, a five-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, had disqualified the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, declaring him not ‘honest’.

The court had held that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was chairman of the board of Capital FZE, a UAE-based company, and had receivables in the form of a salary from that company, which constituted assets, a fact he failed to disclose in his nomination papers for the 2013 general elections.

What do you think about the story ? Leave your comments!

Heading (Optional)

Your Comments: *

Your Name:*

E-mail (Optional):

City (Optional):

Country (Optional):

Field marked(*) are mandatory.
Note. The PakTribune will publish as many comments as possible but cannot guarantee publication of all. PakTribune keeps its rights reserved to edit the comments for reasons of clarity, brevity and morality.
The external links like http:// https:// etc... are not allowed for the time being to be posted inside comments to discourage spammers.